Read the Knife - PorchSourcing ( Traditionals Only )

This isn't the most subtle example. But it's not the most extreme example either. It is one of the most common sources of confusion.

Anyone want to read this knife? (sorry about the odd angle of the first photo. the photos are from the web.)



 
1930's to 1970's USA tang stamp, according to a quickie BING search.

I'm no expert, but didn't Boker always have a shield?
 
Boker knives don't always have shields. Dates are correct.

Here is a different example for comparison. It is the same brand/pattern but not the knife we are "reading".

 
supratentorial said:
Click to expand...

The blades have been resurfaced by buffing. You'll often find old knives misrepresented as "mint", "like new", "unused" when they are actually buffed. You can remove quite a bit of pitting by resurfacing the blades. So a well used knife can still be made shiny. But shiny is not the same as new. Sometimes the blades that have a bit of patina are actually better preserved.

If you compare the surface in this photo to the scans above, you should see the difference. The grit marks have been buffed smooth and it now has a mirror finish. You can also see the scratches from the buffer are not perpendicular to the spine. And the edges have been slightly rounded.

One of the reasons that scans are helpful for looking at old knives is that they show a lot of surface detail.
 
This knife sold for $455 plus shipping so I think it's worth "reading".

You'll notice right away that the blade doesn't belong in the knife. The Barnett Pliers knife always had a spear blade. It never had a clip blade. And Case never made these knives.

The surfaces have been buffed. And of course, buffing is a finishing step for a parts knife. In particular, buffing bolsters is necessary to make the pivot pin flush after it is replaced.



 
On the Case ( Barnett )

Great example, Jake!

The cover pins stick out like a sore thumb as well. Do you have a quick pick of one of your original examples for comparison?
 
I have authentic examples (and an original box and original ads) but the knife on Bernard Levine's website is an especially nice example of the pattern. http://pweb.netcom.com/~brlevine/barnett.htm Below are a few photos of an authentic Barnett Pliers Knife from his website.

barnett150c-01.jpg

barnett150d-01.jpg
 
One of the many reasons not to buff old knives is that it's a finishing step of a parts knife. Fakers love the popular trend of buffing old knives. It helps them pass off their work to unsuspecting buyers.

Of course, bolsters (or any part of a knife) should not be buffed/resurfaced anyway if you want to preserve an old knife. It removes the original finish. It's funny how there's lots of interest in patina on new knives (pages and pages of photos), yet patina is often removed from old knives instead of preserving what remains of the original finish.

Here's an extremely well preserved oldie. Notice that the bolsters have a bit of discoloration. They have not been polished or buffed.



And here's an extremely buffed knife.

 
Last edited:
Excellent, Jake! Thanks for the link also on the Barnett knife ( original ). Interesting to compare knives on the same page!
 
Two more examples of fakes/parts knives. With the exception of the stag/bone combo, the parts knives were misrepresented as authentic. The seller of the stag/bone combo wasn't sure if it was original or not . :rolleyes:

Both the blade and screwdriver are incorrect for this knife. The shield is incorrect. It's been resurfaced. The photos are too low resolution to see smaller details. This one had a buy it now around $695 plus $5 shipping.






The blade and the stag cover are incorrect.






 
Last edited:
Jake
Your posting some great "reading" material! On the Case...I was thinking they looked like Hen & Rooster blades that had bee ground down. I also see two pivot pins on each bolster and from my limited knowledge the shield does not match the tang stamp.

Jsega51
Thanks for the follow up pictures. Interestingly there is no catch bit on that knife that I can see :confused:
 
Gevonovich said:
Jsega51
Thanks for the follow up pictures. Interestingly there is no catch bit on that knife that I can see :confused:
Click to expand...

Nope, just the way the blades are ground and the slight swedges allow for clearance. I didn't realize that there wasn't a catch bit until I pulled the knife out for these pics.
 
Gevonovich said:
Jake
Your posting some great "reading" material! On the Case...I was thinking they looked like Hen & Rooster blades that had bee ground down. I also see two pivot pins on each bolster and from my limited knowledge the shield does not match the tang stamp.

Jsega51
Thanks for the follow up pictures. Interestingly there is no catch bit on that knife that I can see :confused:
Click to expand...
I also noticed mismatched pivot pins: one brass, and one nickle/silver. I sourced a picture of a bulldog "cuttin horse", but Hen & Rooster would be just as likely, maybe more so.
 
Jsega51 said:
Nope, just the way the blades are ground and the slight swedges allow for clearance. I didn't realize that there wasn't a catch bit until I pulled the knife out for these pics.
Click to expand...

Thanks again, Jake. My knife is still has some mystery left then...hummm

Russell

Thanks for your input....I'm enjoying this :D
 
This thread has been very informative and enlightening. Thank you Jake for sharing your knowledge. :cool:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top